Question for Christians: why is the Antichrist bad?

[Darth Wong]

This is a serious question. If I understand Christian dogma correctly, God allows evil deeds to occur on this Earth because he believes in free will (I guess he had a change of heart after his last righteous massacre), and he does not reveal himself to us because he wants us to choose him by faith, not by evidence (convenient). He sent his son Jesus to Earth to give us salvation (from a sentence that God himself inflicted on us), and if we choose him, we can live with him forever in Heaven, etc.

So the question is: how does the antichrist harm any of this agenda? If people follow the antichrist, they will be doing so of their own free will, which God supposedly supports. If God reveals himself to us in order to fight the antichrist, then he will be violating the whole "must choose by faith" thing. Since those who choose salvation in Christ are guaranteed endless back-rubs and chocolates etc. in Heaven, it really doesn't cause any problem if most of the world slides into Satanic worship under the antichrist.

So why is the coming of the antichrist supposed to be a bad thing? Why will God reveal himself to fight him?

[Flagg]

Just like everything and everyone else, the Anti-Christ supposedly serves Gods Plan©. Somehow his doings summon Jesus 2.0 and he then lays the smackdown on Damien and the mudpeople. It doesn't make any goddamned sense, but then the whole "Everyone has free will, but everyone also serves Gods Plan©" has always perplexed the shit out of me too. Hell, the entire concept of holding 2 completely opposing ideas in ones head while believing in them both completely is fucking alien to me.

[Durandal]

I think that your option for choosing runs out when the anti-Christ comes. So when he shows up and God reveals himself, those who didn't choose to be Christians are sealed into their fate.

[Durandal]

Hell, the entire concept of holding 2 completely opposing ideas in ones head while believing in them both completely is fucking alien to me.

Christianity has declared both of those things true and then used the fact that they are mutually contradictory as evidence of how Wonderful and Mysterious God is.

[Flagg]

Ghetto Edit:

I guess the entire "do not follow the Anti-Christ" thing is more about saving souls, than an actual desire for his plans to be averted. Most hardline Christians can't seem to wait for him to arrive, because then Jesus Christ 2: Christ Harder comes back and all the faithful take the elevator ride up to heaven. And remember, the Christian idea of heaven is pretty lame, it's all about "being one with god". And no one actually gets to heaven until Frodo destroys the Ring of Power and Gandalf decides who gets to go to Valinor, and who gets to burn in the firey pits of Mordor for all eternity.

[Darth Raptor]

I think that your option for choosing runs out when the anti-Christ comes. So when he shows up and God reveals himself, those who didn't choose to be Christians are sealed into their fate.

Not really. The Rapture will take everyone who had faith while there was still ambiguity, everyone left behind will still have a choice. The difference is that the correct choice is now super-blatantly-obvious (take the Mark of the Beast or don't). As a kind of tradeoff, the trials the Christian must now endure to get to Heaven are much more arduous than they were before the Tribulation. Believers will have to live in hiding, live on the run or succumb to severe penalties by the state.

[D.Turtle]

So why is the coming of the antichrist supposed to be a bad thing? Why will God reveal himself to fight him?

Well, in my experience (which does not include rapture-loving american fundamentalists) the Anti-Christ is bad because:
1) It is a clear sign that the end is coming. Only weird fundamentalist assholes want that to happen.
2) He will be at the forefront of convincing people to fight against God and not being saved.

I guess the entire "do not follow the Anti-Christ" thing is more about saving souls, than an actual desire for his plans to be averted.

Correct. To a christian nothing is more important than saving souls.

Most hardline Christians can't seem to wait for him to arrive, because then Jesus Christ 2: Christ Harder comes back and all the faithful take the elevator ride up to heaven.

This weird rapture belief and WELCOMING the apocalypse is a relatively new thing that is nostly confined to the US. Most christians I know (which would mostly be german and philippine evangelists) do not believe this rapture stuff and do not want the apocalypse to happen ASAP.

Not really. The Rapture will take everyone who had faith while there was still ambiguity, everyone left behind will still have a choice. The difference is that the correct choice is now super-blatantly-obvious (take the Mark of the Beast or don't). As a kind of tradeoff, the trials the Christian must now endure to get to Heaven are much more arduous than they were before the Tribulation. Believers will have to live in hiding, live on the run or succumb to severe penalties by the state.

This is pretty much how I know it (except for the Rapture thing).
Pretty much the coming of the Anti-Christ will be the beginning of the end, and will result in massive amounts of people believing in Jesus.

[D.Turtle]

Ghetto-edit: replace "german and philippine evangelists" with "german and philippine evangelicals

[VT-16]

take the Mark of the Beast or don't

Yeah, the "evil credit card", which for some reason is completely different to any previous currency that could also have been seen as "evil" when first introduced over the last 2,000 odd years. Where's a Psyduck emoticon when I need it? :P

[Nova Andromeda]

This is a serious question. If I understand Christian dogma correctly, God allows evil deeds to occur on this Earth because he believes in free will (I guess he had a change of heart after his last righteous massacre), and he does not reveal himself to us because he wants us to choose him by faith, not by evidence (convenient). He sent his son Jesus to Earth to give us salvation (from a sentence that God himself inflicted on us), and if we choose him, we can live with him forever in Heaven, etc.

So the question is: how does the antichrist harm any of this agenda? If people follow the antichrist, they will be doing so of their own free will, which God supposedly supports. If God reveals himself to us in order to fight the antichrist, then he will be violating the whole "must choose by faith" thing. Since those who choose salvation in Christ are guaranteed endless back-rubs and chocolates etc. in Heaven, it really doesn't cause any problem if most of the world slides into Satanic worship under the antichrist.

So why is the coming of the antichrist supposed to be a bad thing? Why will God reveal himself to fight him?

-Theoretically, the anticrhist is part of God's plan and isn't bad in the sense that it hurts God's plan. Nevertheless, the antichrist is "evil" and should be fought against by "good" (this is part of God's plan too). However, there are serious problems with the logic of any of this type of reasoning which vary in degree depending on who exactly you go to for skinny on God's plan.
-I would like to point out that people should not forget that the people who believe in this have rejected rational thought. That is: the antichrist can be both 100% bad and 100% not bad at the same time in their minds.

[Quadlok]

There are also many (or at least some) Christians who are smart enough to dismiss Revelations as the crock of bullshit it is, and thus don't feel the need to ponder the role of the Antichrist.

Really, Revelations was just an early example of pandering to your base.

[Superman]

The book of Revelation was also never quite universally accepted among Christians. Luther wanted to remove it from that canon, and a few other traditions reject it as well, like Quadlock said.

[Flagg]

I think that your option for choosing runs out when the anti-Christ comes. So when he shows up and God reveals himself, those who didn't choose to be Christians are sealed into their fate.

Not really. The Rapture will take everyone who had faith while there was still ambiguity, everyone left behind will still have a choice. The difference is that the correct choice is now super-blatantly-obvious (take the Mark of the Beast or don't). As a kind of tradeoff, the trials the Christian must now endure to get to Heaven are much more arduous than they were before the Tribulation. Believers will have to live in hiding, live on the run or succumb to severe penalties by the state.

The Rapture isn't even in the Bible, IIRC. It's just something a bunch of Protestants made up in the 18th or 19th century. No one goes to heaven until Christ returns and sends the Anti-Christ back to hell.

[pskouson]

This is a serious question. ... (I guess he had a change of heart after his last righteous massacre), ... (convenient). ... (from a sentence that God himself inflicted on us),

Are you sure this is a serious question? It kinda doesn't sound like it. I guess it depends on the intended audience.

[Superman]

This is a serious question. ... (I guess he had a change of heart after his last righteous massacre), ... (convenient). ... (from a sentence that God himself inflicted on us),

Are you sure this is a serious question?

Did you even bother to read the last paragraph of the original post?

[Stark]

Are you sure this is a serious question? It kinda doesn't sound like it. I guess it depends on the intended audience.

Is it impossible to ask a serious question about something that is stupid? Before you answer, remember you're on a STvSW board.

[Lord Zentei]

This is a serious question. ... (I guess he had a change of heart after his last righteous massacre), ... (convenient). ... (from a sentence that God himself inflicted on us),

Are you sure this is a serious question? It kinda doesn't sound like it. I guess it depends on the intended audience.

It is a serious question about free will and its relationship with divine plan, phrased in an unusual manner.

[Darth Wong]

This is a serious question. ... (I guess he had a change of heart after his last righteous massacre), ... (convenient). ... (from a sentence that God himself inflicted on us),

Are you sure this is a serious question? It kinda doesn't sound like it. I guess it depends on the intended audience.

Are you suggesting that in order to be "serious", a question cannot be phrased in such a manner that it will offend Christians? Are you sure you're not asking a retarded question?

I'm asking Christians to explain something to me. I am under no obligation to fellate Christianity while I ask this question.

[pskouson]

Are you suggesting that in order to be "serious", a question cannot be phrased in such a manner that it will offend Christians? Are you sure you're not asking a retarded question?

I'm asking Christians to explain something to me. I am under no obligation to fellate Christianity while I ask this question.

I'm not suggesting that serious questions must be inoffensive. Not at all. It's just that I don't know if I've ever heard a serious question asked with so much sarcasm. Clearly the question was worded to be quite offensive.

But like I said, it all depends on the intended audience. If you were trying to ask a person who really knows his actual theology, say a Catholic Bishop or someone else who really takes his religion seriously and has thought all these questions out, then a question dripping with that kind of sarcasm is unlikely to get a good response. On the other hand if your question is directed at a group of people who debunk religion in their spare time using oversimplified theology, then you are very likely indeed to get a thoughtful response.

I'm sure it's not a retarded question. Just useless, since I kind of answered it for myself in my original post: it depends on the intended audience.

[wolveraptor]

On the other hand if your question is directed at a group of people who debunk religion in their spare time using oversimplified theology

Was that a veiled attack on most of the people of the board? Dude, veiled attacks are for pussies. Say what you mean.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

using oversimplified theology

Please explain what you mean, being as I am just a silly heathen unable to comprehend your divine perspective. Please enlighten me regarding the vast intricacies of faith which are skimmed over. In another thread, even, if you feel it appropriate.

[Stark]

It's better than that: he's saying knowledgable people HATE sarcasm and won't like Mikes questions (ie priests) whereas uninformed greasey masses like us will lap it up. What a load of pussyfooting nonsense.

Remember, it's 'oversimplified' to point out the stupid parts of the Bible. Uh... huh.

[Elaro]

As a former Catholic, I think the answer to your question boils down to basic human sympathy (misguided though it may be).

Let me use a metaphor. From the Christian point of view, we're all walking along parallel paths. But Jesus, like someone who scouted the land ahead, comes to us and warns us that there is a cliff up ahead, and that there's only one path that's practicable. Then comes the Antichrist, who says that there is no cliff (or something). Thus, conflict ensue.

So, essentially, Christians want to prevent our metaphorical selves from falling off a cliff. And THAT is why the Antichrist is bad. Supposedly.

And I don't think God himself comes to fight him, but Jesus. I could be wrong: It'S a while since I read Revelations.

[Elaro]

GHETTO EDIT: Hey, I'm a little slow on the uptake it seems.

[Vendetta]

It's better than that: he's saying knowledgable people HATE sarcasm and won't like Mikes questions (ie priests) whereas uninformed greasey masses like us will lap it up. What a load of pussyfooting nonsense.

I think he's trying to say that people with a vested interest in the subject under discussion will be unable to see the seriousness of the question, because they'll be too busy taking umbrage at the sarcasm.

Which, of course, is illuminating, since it shows just how subjective the precepts of faith are. You can be as sarcastic as you like when asking a question about, say, gravity of a physicist, but their answers will be just as objectively correct.